Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]

[Don Haines]

I think there's more to it than that. More resolution means more data to handle onboard the camera = you consume your buffer more quickly than a same sized buffer taking lower resolution shots.

Put another way, even if the 1DX II came in a relatively modest 30 MP, many who shoot action would argue that they'd rather have less pixels + more frames captured.

I don't shoot high FPS action like others on this forum do, so please straighten me out if I have misspoken.

- A

Like bdunbar79 said, all else being equal more resolution is always better. Its not my job to design the throughput pipe or the buffer. If its possible to do 30MP at 12+fps with a deep buffer, awesome, Canon should definitely do that. If not, they probably won't. I don't think there's any inclination on Canon's part to nerf the framerate or buffer on their action shooter flagship to squeeze out a few more pixels.

Sure, so (loosely paraphrasing), Canon should give us the most pixels possible without reducing the speed/buffer of the 1DX II.

I'd agree with that, but that very well may be only 22-24 MP. I'm no throughput expert, but someone on this forum should be able to do some crude calcuations based on what we think a next-gen DIGIC could muster. we could use that figure to back out what the file size would need to be to maintain the current framerate, right?

- A

even going to dual Digic6 you have enough of an increase in computing power to more than handle a doubling of the data throughput, so I don't think that would be the problem/bottleneck..... The big change here would be cFast storage, which would allow data to be written far faster than compact flash..... They probably could get away with 30Mb and 15FPS without flooding the buffer....

Remember, the 7D2, at 20Mpixels and 10Fps can shoot forever..... Can Digic7 and cFast double that throughput?

 

[TexPhoto]

What about the one spec that really matters, the one that comes tight after the $
$6500?
$5K?
8.5K???

And six moths later?

 

[gsealy]

What about the one spec that really matters, the one that comes tight after the $
$6500?
$5K?
8.5K???

And six moths later?

It should be interesting. My guess is that your last number is closer to it than any of the others. It will be a nice tax writeoff for the professionals.

 

[sportshooter]

CAn Canon PLEASE increase the DR of this what $7,000 camera. Can they also implement a way for sports shooters to go through each burst to review and delete in camera ( treat each burst as sort of a collection to review to mark for keeps or delete i think NIkon does this??.

Why is the Nikon d4 and d4s better than this 1dx?? and WHY does anyone need more than say 12 fps?
Can't they keep 12 fps or up it to 13 and improve the color/MP? high ISO Noise etc? I feel as a sports shooter that it's terrible to have such a camera being so expensive, at the expense of image quality.
Lets face it i think i would change to a different camera brand if the 1dx didn't track so well. how about 25mp with huge light soaking photodiodes??
Would be nice to have THE option to set a 1.6 crop thus turning my 70-200 into a beast of reacher if one wants that.
Also i think the AF is good but overly complicated in terms of tweeks. Most Olympics were shot in case 1 anyways so....and Nikons af is more intuitive, not over complicated-so i have heard.

Also a way to transmit pics easily form the camera on the field of play- any point and shoot can do this for about $100 or less.
How about Canon putting a Sony sensor into this 1dx ii? If we look at Dxo scores this 1dx sensor is much worse in low light than Nikon's d4 or d4s by about 1,000 ISO.
Really iso on the 1dx over 4,000 is not good enough, sure it can shoot higher but -yuck, for 6- 7 grand i expect much more!

 

[bdunbar79]

CAn Canon PLEASE increase the DR of this what $7,000 camera. Can they also implement a way for sports shooters to go through each burst to review and delete in camera ( treat each burst as sort of a collection to review to mark for keeps or delete i think NIkon does this??.

Why is the Nikon d4 and d4s better than this 1dx?? and WHY does anyone need more than say 12 fps?
Can't they keep 12 fps or up it to 13 and improve the color/MP? high ISO Noise etc? I feel as a sports shooter that it's terrible to have such a camera being so expensive, at the expense of image quality.
Lets face it i think i would change to a different camera brand if the 1dx didn't track so well. how about 25mp with huge light soaking photodiodes??
Would be nice to have THE option to set a 1.6 crop thus turning my 70-200 into a beast of reacher if one wants that.
Also i think the AF is good but overly complicated in terms of tweeks. Most Olympics were shot in case 1 anyways so....and Nikons af is more intuitive, not over complicated-so i have heard.

Also a way to transmit pics easily form the camera on the field of play- any point and shoot can do this for about $100 or less.
How about Canon putting a Sony sensor into this 1dx ii? If we look at Dxo scores this 1dx sensor is much worse in low light than Nikon's d4 or d4s by about 1,000 ISO.
Really iso on the 1dx over 4,000 is not good enough, sure it can shoot higher but -yuck, for 6- 7 grand i expect much more!

Not really sure what in the heck you are talking about. But crop mode doesn't make your lenses have more reach and the D4s has 0.3 stops more DR than the 1Dx at ISO 6400. So, 0.3 stops is "much worse?"

It's about the superior tracking abilities. I shot an entire soccer game at night the other night with a 1Dx and 400 f/2.8 lens at f/3.2 and didn't miss one single shot (488 total with bursts).

I don't know about you but if I can only take one camera to an NFL game I know which one I'm taking.

 

[Loswr]

CAn Canon PLEASE increase the DR of this what $7,000 camera. Can they also implement a way for sports shooters to go through each burst to review and delete in camera ( treat each burst as sort of a collection to review to mark for keeps or delete i think NIkon does this??.

Why is the Nikon d4 and d4s better than this 1dx?? and WHY does anyone need more than say 12 fps?
Can't they keep 12 fps or up it to 13 and improve the color/MP? high ISO Noise etc? I feel as a sports shooter that it's terrible to have such a camera being so expensive, at the expense of image quality.
Lets face it i think i would change to a different camera brand if the 1dx didn't track so well. how about 25mp with huge light soaking photodiodes??
Would be nice to have THE option to set a 1.6 crop thus turning my 70-200 into a beast of reacher if one wants that.
Also i think the AF is good but overly complicated in terms of tweeks. Most Olympics were shot in case 1 anyways so....and Nikons af is more intuitive, not over complicated-so i have heard.

Also a way to transmit pics easily form the camera on the field of play- any point and shoot can do this for about $100 or less.
How about Canon putting a Sony sensor into this 1dx ii? If we look at Dxo scores this 1dx sensor is much worse in low light than Nikon's d4 or d4s by about 1,000 ISO.
Really iso on the 1dx over 4,000 is not good enough, sure it can shoot higher but -yuck, for 6- 7 grand i expect much more!

Canon PLEASE release a fully automated 1DX II so I can sit in the stands and swill beer, or maybe throw beer cans like Canadians, while the camera does all the work. Nikon is coming out with one-so i have heard.

 

[raptor3x]

If we look at Dxo scores this 1dx sensor is much worse in low light than Nikon's d4 or d4s by about 1,000 ISO.

That's just a quirk of the way the DXO sports score is defined, specifically it's dependence on color depth. If you look at the detailed data the 1DX is a bit better than the D4 and a bit worse than the D4s.

 

[tpatana]

CAn Canon PLEASE increase the DR of this what $7,000 camera. Can they also implement a way for sports shooters to go through each burst to review and delete in camera ( treat each burst as sort of a collection to review to mark for keeps or delete i think NIkon does this??.

Why is the Nikon d4 and d4s better than this 1dx?? and WHY does anyone need more than say 12 fps?
Can't they keep 12 fps or up it to 13 and improve the color/MP? high ISO Noise etc? I feel as a sports shooter that it's terrible to have such a camera being so expensive, at the expense of image quality.
Lets face it i think i would change to a different camera brand if the 1dx didn't track so well. how about 25mp with huge light soaking photodiodes??
Would be nice to have THE option to set a 1.6 crop thus turning my 70-200 into a beast of reacher if one wants that.
Also i think the AF is good but overly complicated in terms of tweeks. Most Olympics were shot in case 1 anyways so....and Nikons af is more intuitive, not over complicated-so i have heard.

Also a way to transmit pics easily form the camera on the field of play- any point and shoot can do this for about $100 or less.
How about Canon putting a Sony sensor into this 1dx ii? If we look at Dxo scores this 1dx sensor is much worse in low light than Nikon's d4 or d4s by about 1,000 ISO.
Really iso on the 1dx over 4,000 is not good enough, sure it can shoot higher but -yuck, for 6- 7 grand i expect much more!

Canon PLEASE release a fully automated 1DX II so I can sit in the stands and swill beer, or maybe throw beer cans like Canadians, while the camera does all the work. Nikon is coming out with one-so i have heard.

I heard D5 will fetch beer for you so you don't need to get up. I'm totally switching.

 

[StudentOfLight]

CAn Canon PLEASE increase the DR of this what $7,000 camera. Can they also implement a way for sports shooters to go through each burst to review and delete in camera ( treat each burst as sort of a collection to review to mark for keeps or delete i think NIkon does this??.

Why is the Nikon d4 and d4s better than this 1dx?? and WHY does anyone need more than say 12 fps?
Can't they keep 12 fps or up it to 13 and improve the color/MP? high ISO Noise etc? I feel as a sports shooter that it's terrible to have such a camera being so expensive, at the expense of image quality.
Lets face it i think i would change to a different camera brand if the 1dx didn't track so well. how about 25mp with huge light soaking photodiodes??
Would be nice to have THE option to set a 1.6 crop thus turning my 70-200 into a beast of reacher if one wants that.
Also i think the AF is good but overly complicated in terms of tweeks. Most Olympics were shot in case 1 anyways so....and Nikons af is more intuitive, not over complicated-so i have heard.

Also a way to transmit pics easily form the camera on the field of play- any point and shoot can do this for about $100 or less.
How about Canon putting a Sony sensor into this 1dx ii? If we look at Dxo scores this 1dx sensor is much worse in low light than Nikon's d4 or d4s by about 1,000 ISO.
Really iso on the 1dx over 4,000 is not good enough, sure it can shoot higher but -yuck, for 6- 7 grand i expect much more!

Not really sure what in the heck you are talking about. But crop mode doesn't make your lenses have more reach and the D4s has 0.3 stops more DR than the 1Dx at ISO 6400. So, 0.3 stops is "much worse?"

It's about the superior tracking abilities. I shot an entire soccer game at night the other night with a 1Dx and 400 f/2.8 lens at f/3.2 and didn't miss one single shot (488 total with bursts).

I don't know about you but if I can only take one camera to an NFL game I know which one I'm taking.

Mr Dunbar, you are very disciplined with that trigger finger. If I had a 1D-X I'd probably shoot 3000 images for a game.

I guess I'm used to shooting ice-skating where there is so much action packed into a 2-3 minute program... I typically shoot about 80-140 images for a single skating program.

 

[Steve]

CAn Canon PLEASE increase the DR of this what $7,000 camera. Can they also implement a way for sports shooters to go through each burst to review and delete in camera ( treat each burst as sort of a collection to review to mark for keeps or delete i think NIkon does this??

That would be nice although I don't usually do much deleting on the field. Still might be nice way to manage space on cards for all day events. For wildlife shooting, though, that would be very helpful.

Why is the Nikon d4 and d4s better than this 1dx?? and WHY does anyone need more than say 12 fps?

I don't think it is? I'd love to have the better DR of the Sony sensor for daytime games, sure, but not at the expense of AF tracking if that were the tradeoff. Also, not sure if you are aware of this but you can adjust your burst rate in the menu. Personally, I'd love to have more frames to choose from when photographing a wide receiver picking off a catch. Can't tell you how many sequences I have that go ball just out of frame > ball tucked into chest and missed the actual moment of the catch.

Would be nice to have THE option to set a 1.6 crop thus turning my 70-200 into a beast of reacher if one wants that.
Also i think the AF is good but overly complicated in terms of tweeks. Most Olympics were shot in case 1 anyways so....and Nikons af is more intuitive, not over complicated-so i have heard.

Why? Crop in post. Either I'm gonna crop it or my editor will, one way or another. The only thing you'll get with a crop mode is too little field of view when the play runs too close to you. I've never understood why anyone would want this feature. Also, the AF system is as complicated as you want it to be. You can set it to switch between all point and single point with a button press if the cases are too much to think about during the action. I hate to come off as one of those smug jerks that's all "why don't you just RTFM :smughard:" but it doesn't actually hurt to be familiar with the equipment you use.

Also a way to transmit pics easily form the camera on the field of play- any point and shoot can do this for about $100 or less.

This would be awesome and is long overdue. I'd love to send some shots to my editor from the sidelines without some rigamarole.

Really iso on the 1dx over 4,000 is not good enough, sure it can shoot higher but -yuck, for 6- 7 grand i expect much more!

I shoot at 6400 pretty regularly on my 1DIV and am happy with the results, at least for sports. I think people are waaaay to picky when it comes to noise these days. No one notices grain if the shot has good drama and captures the action. People will notice if it's out of focus though!